New at Reason
In his latest Foxnews.com column, Radley Balko warns that you needn't make your living playing Texas Hold 'Em to worry about the Internet gambling ban.
Comments to "New at Reason":
Yet again, Radley brings me down. And I was having such a good day.
Bingo | January 3, 2008, 4:13pm | #
I was really looking forward to the MPAA/RIAA-sponsored invasion of Antigua. Maybe they could put some war footage on those damn PSAs they show before every movie these days.Steve | January 3, 2008, 4:16pm | #
Fuck, Radley! Stop making so much sense! The scumbags in DC can't hide their hypocrisy when people like you point it out so clearly and thoroughly. Damn.No what are some URLs to file sharing sites based in Antigua (that is, once I dump Comcast)?
Phil Hellmuth | January 3, 2008, 4:21pm | #
I can dodge bullets baby.jimmydageek | January 3, 2008, 4:22pm | #
Great article. Now, how do we get this article on major media outlets other than Reason?Mike M. | January 3, 2008, 4:22pm | #
I was under the impression that the ban simply made the financial transactions with the sites illegal, not that it made actually playing illegal (though I'm aware that the governor of Massachusetts actually tried to make even that a felony). I didn't realize that the law actually authorized the ISPs to begin monitoring their customers internet use.And unless the U.S. is prepared to make it illegal for all Americans to move their money anywhere overseas, they can't even prevent the monetary exchanges.
But it is truly unfortunate that Antigua and Europe caved so easily for a few billion dollars of payoff. I can't think of too many other situations where other nations have had the U.S. government over a barrel to the extent that they did here. They should have forced the issue more because of the principle.
Radley Balko | January 3, 2008, 4:24pm | #
Mike M. -- It's not yet clear how the regs will be enforced. They're still being written. Banks will almost be certainly asked to monitor their customers. It's less clear if ISPs will be asked to do the same, though one of the initial bills in 2005 called for that.jimmydageek | January 3, 2008, 4:31pm | #
I hope the onus falls on banks and not ISPs. At least with banks there are several easy work-arounds.Paul | January 3, 2008, 4:43pm | #
U.S. entertainment industry and the moral majority types behind the gambling ban.Radley:
I do not believe this. There is way more to this than the moral majority. There is some kind of a protection racket going on here, and those wanting the protection are relying on "moral majority types" to "move out and draw fire".
The "moral majority types" are merely the noisy rabble (pawns) who are willing to show up on camera, and unwittingly so.
There are existing brick-and-mortar gambling interests that are behind this. Somebody's getting protection on this deal.
This is why the terms are secret and it all happened behind closed doors. Somewhere there, in every photo, there's a man with a cinematically placed shadow across his face, smoking a cigar.
Ben | January 3, 2008, 4:57pm | #
Slightly off topic(ok, way off topic), but does anyone know when we will hear the results from the Iowa caucuses? Late tonight? Tomorrow sometime?I know its not done like normal voting and as simple as someone pushing a button on a machine and the machine counting up all of the votes.
Paul | January 3, 2008, 4:59pm | #
Late tonight? Tomorrow sometime?I wouldn't bet on it. (Now you're back on topic)
HAAA! I kill me.
I'm here all week...
Murdoch | January 3, 2008, 5:20pm | #
jimmydageek | January 3, 2008, 4:22pm | #Great article. Now, how do we get this article on major media outlets other than Reason?
It is a Foxnews.com article.
BakedPenguin | January 3, 2008, 5:32pm | #
Paul - I was thinking along the same lines. Isn't that what the Abramoff scandal was all about?As it is, I'm not going to a US casino, racetrack, etc. until the ban is rescinded.
I mean, your mailbag from your immigration piece might have been the best thing I read in 2006.
Agreed with Warty.... I'd love to see some of your mail you get from foxnews.com readers, especially on topics like this.
Josh | January 3, 2008, 7:06pm | #
Nothing like mommy watching over us to make sure we do not waste our money. After all, mommy should be the only one to dictate how we use our allowance...Thank you for the article - proof that this fucking Government is a joke.
whit | January 3, 2008, 7:08pm | #
"(though I'm aware that the governor of Massachusetts actually tried to make even that a felony). "in WA (liberaltopia) it IS a C Felony to play online poker (unless you don't play for money).
the liberal nannystaters strike again. note that GAMBLING (including state sponsored lottery tix) is entirely legal in WA state, and casinos are everywhere.
walk into a casino and pay exorbitant rake in a hold-em game. no problem?
want to log on to party poker and play a $2 tournament?
yer a felon.
this, like most bad legislation, was justified to "protect the consumer" (lol). what it REALL is about is that state of WA gets no tax revenue from online gambling, and it was seen as something that might diminish casino traffic. so, they needed to ban it.
i could at least respect a state that banned ALL gambling - in that it would be consistent. but WA state merely bans the gambling that they see as a risk to their tax revenues and their friends in the casino industry.
Rhywun | January 3, 2008, 8:43pm | #
The credit card companies already monitor my purchases to ensure I don't buy cigarettes online. It's no stretch of the imagination to add gambling to list of banned purchases.LarryA | January 4, 2008, 10:16am | #
They should have forced the issue more because of the principle.National governments acting on principle? Right.
Somewhere there, in every photo, there's a man with a cinematically placed shadow across his face, smoking a cigar.
Can you spell “state lottery industry?”
Because tariffs on U.S. goods would hurt the Antiguan economy far more than the U.S. economy, the WTO gave the okay for Antigua to recoup its losses in the form of copyright infringement, essentially making the country a haven for movie, music, and software piracy.
So if Antigua complies with the U.S. government’s “request” and “protects” me from gambling on their websites, they are then authorized to “punish” the U.S. government by pirating my novel. How truly wonderful. I get shafted from both ends.
Wicks Cherrycoke | January 4, 2008, 11:05am | #
Radley Balko states:"Part of the problem is the mentality that comes with this kind of legislation. The gambling ban seems to have been supported by two similar approaches to governance that, although they come from opposite sides of the political spectrum, are generally quite similar.
From the right, many feel that if they're personally morally opposed to a particular consensual activity, it ought to be banned for everyone. From the left, it's the mentality that because some people can't engage in a particular activity responsibly and without harming themselves, that activity ought to be banned for everyone. One is moral paternalism. The other is Nanny State paternalism. But the result is the same. The government makes your decisions for you."
Please. The moral/Nanny State justifications for banning gambling died away in the 1970's, when State lotteries exploded like wildfire and casino gambling started in Atlantic City and elsewhere.
Isn't it obvious that today's gambling ban has nothing to do with our moral health, but with protecting the monopolies enjoyed by state lotteries and those localities that chose to go with casinos for tourism dollars?
Slocum | January 4, 2008, 4:09pm | #
I do not believe this. There is way more to this than the moral majority. There is some kind of a protection racket going on here, and those wanting the protection are relying on "moral majority types" to "move out and draw fire".Of course. That pattern is known as 'The Baptists and the Bootleggers'.